Anthropology
Related: About this forumKnuckle sandwich: Did fist fights drive evolution of human face?
Jaws became tough to survive fights, not to eat hard food
REUTERS
JUN 10, 2014
WASHINGTON Current theory about the shape of the human face just got a big punch in the mouth.
Two University of Utah researchers proposed Monday that the face of the ancestors of modern humans evolved millions of years ago in a way that would limit injuries from punches during fist fights between males.
Their theory, published in the journal Biological Reviews, is presented as an alternative to a long-standing notion that changes in the shape of the face were driven more by diet the need for a jaw that could chew hard-to-crush foods such as nuts.
Studies of injuries resulting from fights show that when modern humans fight, the face is the primary target, biologist David Carrier said. The bones of the face that suffer the highest rates of fracture from fights are the bones that show the greatest increase in robusticity during the evolution of early bipedal apes, the australopiths.
These are also the bones that show the greatest difference between women and men...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/06/10/world/science-health-world/knuckle-sandwich-fist-fights-drive-evolution-human-face/
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Our Skulls Didnt Evolve to be Punched
Morgan and Carriers new paper, published in Biological Reviews, is a sequel to an initial paper that suggested our hands evolved as cudgels. This was more than a bit of a stretch. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the proportions of the human hand make it an effective weapon, Morgan and Carrier wrote in the first study, but they couldnt provide any evidence that punching was a preferred or even common mode of fighting in the past. The hypothesis rested on a post hoc fallacy of the same sort used by aquatic ape devotees because our hands can be effective weapons, then they must have evolved for that purpose. No surprise that the concept of a spandrel a trait that wasnt molded specifically by natural selection, but is an evolutionary byproduct later co-opted for a different use never appears in Morgan and Carriers considerations of pummeling fists.
But the skull paper is even stranger. Although Morgan and Carrier focused on the bludgeoning qualities of modern human hands in their previous paper, their new review suggests that our ancient relatives and forebears the australopithecines had faces that were molded into punching bags by natural selection. No sooner did humans come out of the trees, Morgan and Carrier suggest, than they started whaling away on each other. The trouble is that they undercut their own hypothesis, leaving only a crumpled heap of speculation.
Citing crime statistics from western countries, Morgan and Carrier write that fistfights often result in broken noses, jaws, and other facial bones. Therefore, they reason circularly, prehistoric humans that punched each other in the face should have more robust facial bones to cope with such blows. Given that early humans Australopithecus and Paranthropus the latter often called robust australopithecines had broad faces with wide cheeks and thick brow ridges, theyre obviously perfect candidates for Morgan and Carriers favored interpretation.
Morgan and Carrier didnt study whether or not the hands of the early australopithecines could form a fist. Their previous work was on our species, Homo sapiens. Nor did they look for signs of broken facial bones or blunt-force trauma on prehistoric skulls, or even try to model how early human skulls would have reacted to the stresses of an incoming fist. The entire argument is simply that australopithecine skulls look like they could take a punch.
More:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/10/our-skulls-didnt-evolve-to-be-punched/
Anyway look in the comment section one of the researchers comments on the article and debate on this.
Myself? I'm not buying the fisting theory myself.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)However the critique in the NGM (posing as an academic opinion) is one of the least convincing screeds that I've ever meet.
It's clear the person doesn't like it, but anger isn't an argument.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)which is what science is about and expect to see
a lot more discussing the hypothesis and research
on this claim. Its generating a lot of discussion on anthropology sites.
I think if I was fighting I 'd use a club or a hand axe.